|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Symptoms of anhedonia
|
6-10 weeks
|
N=6, n=2076; SMD= -0.24, 95% CI: -0.46, -0.03 95% PrI: -0.77, 0.34
|
Moderate risk: 2 studies had high risk of bias, 2 had a moderate risk of
bias. (Figure 3) The impact of bias on the magnitude e and direction
of the effects of pro-dopaminergic interventions is unclear.
|
Low Risk
|
Moderate risk: 3 of the 6 studies used the Motivation and Energy
Inventory, 2 used a single MADRS anhedonia item, and 1 used the
IDS-IVR-30/IDS-C-30 Pleasure Scale. As anhedonia is a complex construct,
“pleasure” scales and single items may fail at capturing the complexity
of anhedonia in the context of depression.The impact of indirectness its
direction is unclear.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
Direct and indirect evidence for pro-dopaminergic interventions (i.e.,
bupropion) vs placebo
|
Symptoms of anhedonia (MADRS anhedonia item)
|
6-12 weeks
|
N=34, n=14054; SMD= -0.12, 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.00
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Direct and indirect evidence for non-dopaminergic interventions vs
placebo
|
Symptoms of anhedonia (MADRS anhedonia item)
|
6-12 weeks
|
N=34, n=14054; SMD ranges from -0.05 (95% CI: -0.19 to 0.08) to –0.40
(95% CI: -0.48 to –0.32)
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Direct and indirect evidence of pro-dopaminergic interventions
(i.e. buproprion) vs non-dopaminergic
|
Symptoms of anhedonia (MADRS anhedonia item)
|
6-12 weeks
|
N=34, n=14054; SMD ranges from -0.28 (95% CI: -0.15 to 0.41) to -0.07
(95% CI: -0.23 to 0.09)
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Anxiety symptoms
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=11, n=3517; SMD=-0.17, 95%CI: -0.24, -0.09 95%PrI: -0.25, -0.08
|
Moderate risk: 73% of studies were rated as having an overall moderate
risk of bias while 18% were rated as high risk of bias.
|
Low Risk
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Acceptability (dropout for any reason)
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=52, n=9725; OR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.79, 1.17 95% PrI: 0.37, 2.53
|
Moderate risk: 59% had a low overall risk of bias, 10% of studies were
rated as having a high risk of bias, primarily due to concerns over
outcome measurement, while 31% were rated moderate risk of bias.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Tolerability (dropout for side effects)
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=43, n=9030; OR=1.83, 95% CI: 1.38, 2.41 95% PrI: 0.67, 4.95
|
Low risk: 53% had an overall low risk of bias, 12% of studies had an
overall high risk of bias, primarily due to concerns over outcome
measurement, while 35% were rated moderate risk of bias.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Constipation reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
4-10 weeks
|
N=21, n=5375; OR=1.46, 95% CI: 1.17, 1.82 95% PrI: 1.15, 1.84
|
Low risk: 77% of studies were rated as having an overall low risk of
bias and 5% were rated high risk of bias.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Dizziness reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=24, n=6026; OR=1.70, 95% CI: 1.32, 2.18 95% PrI: 0.89, 3.24
|
Low risk: 59% of studies were rated as having an overall low risk of
bias and only 8% were rated high risk of bias.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Dry mouth reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
4-10 weeks
|
N=26, n=6865; OR=2.13, 95%CI: 1.73, 2.63 95%PrI: 1.28, 3.56
|
Low risk: 67% of studies were rated low risk of bias for RoB2 while only
4% were rated high risk of bias.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Headache reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=28, n=7084; OR=1.14, 95%CI: 1.02, 1.28 95%PrI: 1.00, 1.30
|
Low risk: 65% of studies were rated low risk for RoB2 while 31% were
rated as moderate risk with scores of ‘some concerns’ spread out across
domains in no clear pattern.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Nausea reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=26, n=6489; OR=1.46, 95% CI: 1.21, 1.76 95% PrI: 0.92, 2.29
|
Low risk: 73% of studies were rated low risk for RoB2 while 23% were
rated moderate.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Insomnia reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
4-12 weeks
|
N=24, n=6432; OR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.46, 2.25 95% PrI: 1.18, 2.78
|
Low risk: 73% of studies were rated low risk for RoB2 while 23% were
rated moderate.
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
Studies on pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
Vomiting reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
6-12 weeks
|
N=5, n=962; OR=1.90, 95%CI: 0.90, 4.00 95%PrI: 0.82, 4.42
|
Moderate risk: 4of 5 studies were rated as moderate risk and 1 study as
high risk due to concerns in RoB2 domains 3 (missing outcome data) and 4
(measuring the outcome).
|
Moderate risk: The potential for missing studies across the review was
deemed to be low in domain 3 of the RoB-ME assessment however it was
unclear whether some studies generated an eligible result.
|
Low risk: all studies included patients with depression receiving
pro-dopaminergic interventions and assessed for anhedonia.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|